Expensesgate: The Way Forward?
London Assembly Member James Cleverly has an interesting take on how to limit the expense claims for a sink-plunger for an MP’s 9th house which is really owned by their second cousin twice-removed. It’s worth reproducing in full as well as the link. Remember that James is a serving TA officer as well which gives him this military slant on the issue:
Why not just give them quarters?
Yet more bad news about MPs housing allowances!
“I completely understand that MPs need to have a base in or near their constituencies and many also need a place in or near central London. Politicians do work funny hours and a regular commute isn’t always feasible. But why are they expected to find their own accommodation?
Members of the armed forces get moved around the world on a fairly regular basis. An army officer could be based on Germany for a few years, then across to Tidworth (Hampshire) for a bit, up to Glasgow, a stint in London at the MOD, back to Germany etc. It is regarded as part of the job. Single soldiers live in barracks and married soldiers live in married quarters. The Army understands that the job means geographic displacement and acts accordingly.
If it’s good enough for our brave boys it should be good enough for our MPs.
I think that parliament should buy up a number of flats near to central London, 500 should do the trick. There are developments going up in Chelsea, Battersea, etc which most people would give their right arm for. They can be of mixed size to cover everything from single MPs to those who want to base their family in London, the block could have centralised security and be fitted with a secure IT and comms system.
MPs will be allocated a flat when they get voted in and hand it back when they get voted out. Easy.
It might be a bitter financial pill to swallow in the short term but would clean up the system and help to restore confidence in the financial integrity of our MPs.”
This chimes in with a recent suggestion elsewhere to use the Olympic Village (with its obvious built-in security features) after the event for exactly this purpose. TheEye can’t remember where that suggestion came from but will try to track it down and update the post.
James, as usual, is talking good common sense.
UPDATE: Found the other suggestion by CHome’s Jonathan Isaby:
Should MPs be housed in London’s Olympic Village?
I’m not sure I’m entirely persuaded by this idea, but here’s an ingenious contribution to the debate about what to do with MPs’ second home allowances.
It comes from Ian McCord, a Conservative councillor in South Northamptonshire, who has come up with the proposal and set up this petition on the Number Ten website to promote it.
He says that the MPs’ second home allowance should be abolished and that the accommodation being built for athletes in the 2012 Olympic Village in east London should be converted (presumably after the Olympics?) into living accommodation for MPs with constituencies to which they cannot commute.
Cllr McCord makes the point that the apartments in the Olympic Village will doubtless be subject to the most stringent of security – which would obviously be a particular consideration if all MPs are being housed in the same place.
I remember meeting a Swedish MP a few years ago who said that this was exactly what happened in Stockholm: all the MPs had access to rooms in a university-style hall of residence in the city. Apparently the late-night parties on the roof terrace were riotous!
Okay, so maybe the party thing might become a tabloid free-for-all but the theory is there.
Frankly TheEye would prefer 646 lampposts and a lot of rope but keeping them all living in the same place might make it easier when the time comes.
The Army Estate leaves a lot to be desired, one third of it still falls below minimum civilian standards.
The Olympic Village idea seems to get rid of most of the thieving that has going on and would also give a long term return on our Olympic investment.
On the one hand I’m not sure that I like the idea of promoting University Halls type constant partying which would make Parliament even more incestuous but on the other it would make the Whips job a lot easier.
Make it a thousand flats, chuck the Lords in there too, call it Parliamentary Privilege Heights.
At least everyone would get a chance to fuck Caroline Flint without her billing the taxpayer for a hotel room.